State v. Brown

This Source Verification Page documents the North Carolina Court of Appeals' decision in State v. Brown, cited in Claim I of the Supplemental Motion. The opinion addresses evidentiary chain-of-custody requirements and is cited in support of Lyle C. May's claim that deficiencies in the collection, preservation, storage, and documentation of physical evidence raise substantial questions regarding its integrity and reliability.

Related SMAR Citation

“[State v. Brown, 101 N.C. App. 71, 75, 398 S.E.2d 905, 907 (1990)]”

Case Name

State v. Brown

Citation

101 N.C. App. 71, 398 S.E.2d 905 (1990)

Date

December 18, 1990

Verification Source

State v. Brown, 101 N.C. App. 71, 398 S.E.2d 905 (1990)

Source Location

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Highlighted Pages

3

Referenced in the Supplemental Motion

Page 46, Paragraph 94

Source Status

✔ Original judicial opinion obtained and reviewed.

✔ Relevant passages highlighted.

✔ Publicly available source.

✔ Included within the Source Verification Archive.

Cited to Support

Lyle C. May's reliance upon State v. Brown, 101 N.C. App. 71, 398 S.E.2d 905 (1990), for the legal principle that a sufficient chain of custody must be established when physical evidence is susceptible to alteration, contamination, or substitution and questions have been raised regarding its integrity. May cites Brown in support of his allegations that documented deficiencies in the collection, storage, preservation, and inventory of evidence by the Asheville Police Department and the Buncombe County Sheriff's Office raise substantial questions regarding the integrity and reliability of physical evidence in his case.

Supporting Documents

Official Judicial Opinion

Official opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

View Opinion →

Highlighted Research Copy

Working research copy containing the highlighted passages cited in the Supplemental Motion.

View PDF →